This isn't the first time the IRS has been in hot water for meddling in the politics of nonprofits. And if past is prelude, the Obama administration may have a years-long scandal on its hands.

In 2004, the NAACP was hit with an audit over accusations of improper political activity for criticizing the Bush administration.

"We have received information that during your 2004 convention in Philadelphia, your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency," the IRS wrote in an audit notice that the group released to the media at the time.

Auditors also notified the group that it could be subject to a 10 percent tax for political expenditures as well as a 2.5 percent tax on any manager that signed off on the political activity.

The NAACP went public and sparked a now-familiar firestorm. Democrats in Congress were up in arms and called for answers about what constitutes political activity and questioning the political motivations of the agency.

Rep. Charles Rangel, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee at the time, called the audit a police state tactic. Max Baucus, then the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Mark Everson demanding answers to a list of questions about other similar audits.

“The integrity of our tax enforcement system is a critical matter,” Baucus wrote at the time. “The American public expects a high degree of non-partisanship and professionalism from the IRS."

The agency denied a culture of bias. They said the audit was triggered by staffers in a satellite office, this time in Kentucky.

It took more than two years and a lengthy legal battle for the IRS to drop its case against the NAACP. That was all well before the Supreme Court unleashed a flood of political groups into the IRS pool with its Citizens United decision.

“It caught the IRS completely flatfooted,” Lloyd Mayer, one of the attorneys that represented the NAACP in the case, told POLITICO on Monday. “They had never even thought of the possibility that one of their audit targets would go public and accuse the agency of bias.”

That is a huge difference. c3's can't do ANY politics in return for making donations to them tax-deductible. Donations to c4's are not tax deductible, and that is why they can engage in limited political activity.

This article is not useful. It is deliberately misleading and partisan misinformation. Politico, and Kelsey Snell, should be ashamed of corrupting the national discussion on this subject with this poorly-researched piece."

That is a huge difference. c3's can't do ANY politics in return for making donations to them tax-deductible. Donations to c4's are not tax deductible, and that is why they can engage in limited political activity.

This article is not useful. It is deliberately misleading and partisan misinformation. Politico, and Kelsey Snell, should be ashamed of corrupting the national discussion on this subject with this poorly-researched piece."

Threadkiller.

There are big differences between c3 and c4 organizations - It's the same reason churches aren't supposed to get political.

Nice article though - trying to carry the water for Obama by playing the "Bush did it too" card.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Merc14 17,957

The Tea Party and patriots get a swift apology while the NAACP have to go through a two year lawsuit just for the IRS under Bush to stop.

And there was no outcry from those now complaining.

Considering your complete misunderstanding of this entire event it is astounding that you are trying to defend the IRS. I don't think you have read a word about what is being disputed and are simply defending the IRS because you hate the tea party. The big difference between the NAACP event and this one is that the NAACP dispute was about them abusing their c3 status while the Tea Party scandal is about the IRS denying pro-right organizations any kind of tax exemption at all or unnecessarily and/or illegally demanding private info not relevant to c3 or c4 status. Two completely different tax status disputes so why use as a comprison?

FYI, many organizations lose their c3 status annually from practicing political activism much less flagrant than that which the NAACP engages in. If you weren't so blindly obsessed with your hatred of the right you'd see that allowing your side to get away with illegal activity will come back to bite you in the ass when the other side takes over and sites balkekty-blank as precedent when they ride roughshod over your sacred cow.

Those who are being hypocritical are attempting to find minor differences and dismiss the comparison while ignoring the similarities, that the IRS was used as an instrument to oppose and hassle groups who disagreed with the administration.

The only difference that is applicable for others is that the current administration did not know about it while the previous one did, it was in the open, clearly stated in the IRS letter: "your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency..."

This is not to allay those who are wanting to make a scandal out of it now but to inform those who with a suspicious eye are looking at the Republicans and slowly shaking their heads in understanding.

The Benghazi Bray Brigade, the Tea Party Patriot Protesters, and the AP Press Partisans, all the same group of people, are the ones we are seeing hypocrisy from. Clearly they are just being partisan.

Considering your complete misunderstanding of this entire event it is astounding that you are trying to defend the IRS. I don't think you have read a word about what is being disputed and are simply defending the IRS because you hate the tea party. The big difference between the NAACP event and this one is that the NAACP dispute was about them abusing their c3 status while the Tea Party scandal is about the IRS denying pro-right organizations any kind of tax exemption at all or unnecessarily and/or illegally demanding private info not relevant to c3 or c4 status. Two completely different tax status disputes so why use as a comprison?

FYI, many organizations lose their c3 status annually from practicing political activism much less flagrant than that which the NAACP engages in. If you weren't so blindly obsessed with your hatred of the right you'd see that allowing your side to get away with illegal activity will come back to bite you in the ass when the other side takes over and sites balkekty-blank as precedent when they ride roughshod over your sacred cow.

Besides when those who admit to coming online after a few drinks while discussing these issues, we will take them even less seriously.

Let me guess? Beer?

Edited May 14, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bama13 6,677

Whether those who are being hypocritical and are attempting to find minor differences, they are ignoring the similarities, that the IRS was used as an instrument to oppose and hassle groups who disagree with the administration.

The only difference that is applicable for others is that the current administration did not know about it while the previous one did, it was in the open, clearly stated in the IRS letter: "your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency..."

This is not to allay those who are wanting to make a scandal out of it now but to inform those who wish a suspicious eye are looking at the Republicans and slowly shaking their heads in understanding.

The Benghazi Bray Brigade, the Tea Party Patriot Protesters, and the AP Press Partisans, all the same group of people, are the ones we are seeing hypocrisy from. Clearly they are just being partisan.

Besides when those who admit to coming online after a few drinks while discussing these issues, we will take them even less seriously.

Let me guess? Beer?

When it is pointed out, and proven, that you are wrong you should just apologize and move on, not keep digging.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Merc14 17,957

Those who are being hypocritical are attempting to find minor differences and dismiss the comparison while ignoring the similarities, that the IRS was used as an instrument to oppose and hassle groups who disagreed with the administration.

The only difference that is applicable for others is that the current administration did not know about it while the previous one did, it was in the open, clearly stated in the IRS letter: "your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency..."

This is not to allay those who are wanting to make a scandal out of it now but to inform those who with a suspicious eye are looking at the Republicans and slowly shaking their heads in understanding.

The Benghazi Bray Brigade, the Tea Party Patriot Protesters, and the AP Press Partisans, all the same group of people, are the ones we are seeing hypocrisy from. Clearly they are just being partisan.

Besides when those who admit to coming online after a few drinks while discussing these issues, we will take them even less seriously.

Let me guess? Beer?

Wine that night but I enjoy beer as well, why, do you have a oproblem with beer drinkers? Are you even old enough to drink Britney? I am guessing not based on your reaction to being proved wrong again and again and again. Listen, try harder, you sanctimonious little ####, you are boring me.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Merc14

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Rafterman 6,503

Those who are being hypocritical are attempting to find minor differences and dismiss the comparison while ignoring the similarities, that the IRS was used as an instrument to oppose and hassle groups who disagreed with the administration.

The only difference that is applicable for others is that the current administration did not know about it while the previous one did, it was in the open, clearly stated in the IRS letter: "your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency..."

This is not to allay those who are wanting to make a scandal out of it now but to inform those who with a suspicious eye are looking at the Republicans and slowly shaking their heads in understanding.

The Benghazi Bray Brigade, the Tea Party Patriot Protesters, and the AP Press Partisans, all the same group of people, are the ones we are seeing hypocrisy from. Clearly they are just being partisan.

Besides when those who admit to coming online after a few drinks while discussing these issues, we will take them even less seriously.

Not discussing tax attorneys but hypocrisy and how some claimed (whether true or not in both instances Obama or Bush) the administration is using the IRS to crack down on groups they don't like or agree with, the same exact thing happened then, as some are claiming has happened now (even if the WH under Obama did not approve or condone the IRS doing that).

To claim that is different based on 3 or 4 is minor, the hypocrisy is being scrutinized by some, the hypocrites will of course try to defend themselves by presenting such a minor difference that ignores what is in bold above.

The "Bush did it too card" is another ruse. Bush might have did it, Obama did not do it.

In fact the person in charge of the IRS, where the buck stops, was a Republican who Bush appointed.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Merc14 17,957

Not discussing tax attorneys but hypocrisy and how some claimed (whether true or not in both instances Obama or Bush) the administration is using the IRS to crack down on groups they don't like or agree with, the same exact thing happened then, as some are claiming has happened now (even if the WH under Obama did not approve or condone the IRS doing that).

To claim that is different based on 3 or 4 is minor, the hypocrisy is being scrutinized by some, the hypocrites will of course try to defend themselves by presenting such a minor difference that ignores what is in bold above.

The "Bush did it too card" is another ruse. Bush might have did it, Obama did not do it.

In fact the person in charge of the IRS, where the buck stops, was a Republican who Bush appointed.

It is the IRS's job to police c3 organizations. Do some research, here I'll help

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Merc14 17,957

Chilling is all I can say about what is going on at the IRS and there can be little doubt this is run from teh top. Maybe not IObama as I honestly don't think the man is intelligent or engaged enough to do anything but campaign and golf but this has Valerie jarret all over it. Here is just one small example.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Merc14 17,957

It is starting to leak out that the EPA was doing similar things to conservative groups. If Obama was oblivious to all of this he should quit as he would have to be the most incomeptent man to ever hold the office.

4 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kowalski 5,770

It is starting to leak out that the EPA was doing similar things to conservative groups. If Obama was oblivious to all of this he should quit as he would have to be the most incomeptent man to ever hold the office.

Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

CEI reviewed Freedom of Information Act requests sent between January 2012 and this spring from several environmental groups friendly to the EPA’s mission, and several conservative groups, to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy for media and watchdog groups. Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups disseminating information for public benefit.

But of the requests that were denied, “the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public,” Conger reports, citing documents obtained by the Examiner.

And here’s where things could become a headache for the Obama administration:

CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or

Similarly, requests from conservative groups Judicial Watch and National Center for Public Policy Research were approved half the time, and all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied.

“Their practice is to take care of their friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information,” said Horner.

“This is a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly,” he said, adding that he thinks the EPA is stonewalling CEI because it’s one of the few groups that tries to keep the fed agency accountable.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Glorfindel 379

Shouldn't this if anything, confirm what we are saying that both parties are corrupt? I very vocally critisized Bush, now I critisize Obama for using similar tactics. It seems your arguments rely on assuming we were all conservative Bush-worshippers before Obama got elected. Guess what? They are in the same class of corrupt politicians and you should acknowledge that at this point.